...on the link between leadership, high engagement organizations and profitability

This week's inspirational speaker is Anna Alveros, a longtime HR manager from a variety of companies and management consultant. In a conversation with Bengt Olander at Based On People, she shares her thoughts and reflections on something we have known for a long time; "that leaders who have authentic leadership, foster authentic organizations with high commitment, which thus show higher profitability". So we know what to do - why don't we do it?

Anna - what drives customer satisfaction and profitability?

We know this - employee engagement has a strong correlation with both customer satisfaction and profitability, as established in several global studies.

There are also precise definitions of what 'engagement' actually means - individuals who take responsibility and initiative, contribute to learning teams, go above and beyond what is expected, and have a strong desire to produce results. They have no patience for excuses, inefficiencies and delays, but plenty of patience for working towards long-term goals. We all recognize ourselves in that category.

But how many of the employees in an organization are engaged?

According to global studies on employee engagement, we know that it averages around 10% - as defined above.

Oh dear! How can businesses act to boost engagement?

We know that too, and there has been a lot of research on this. A prerequisite for engagement is to create a workplace that is "psychologically safe" - where we as employees have clear and reasonable expectations of us, where we are challenged to make a meaningful contribution, where it includes being trusted to try new ways. The environment is warm and safe, we have a sense of humor, we care about each other and we feel a sense of belonging. My relationship with and the trust I get from my line manager is crucial.

I'm sorry, that's a bit fuzzy; we're at work to produce results in economic terms, aren't we? And surely we need to check that people are doing what they are supposed to?

Every company wants to maximize the effort of each individual, achieve the company's goals and thus maximize the company's profit. We cannot be naïve and believe that "everyone wants to do well all the time", we need professional mechanisms that can catch those who are not actually interested in doing their best.

The hard, economic goals and the soft goals of psychological security are not contradictory. They are complementary and mutually dependent.

The engaged employee is motivated by a good basic structure for control such as quality monitoring and the like.

It sounds like the two may need to be balanced against each other anyway?

You are so right; being overweight on one side or the other does not serve us, either as individuals or companies. We have probably all experienced imbalance and the frustration or "energy leakage" it can bring?

Excessive control makes us feel that the organization does not trust us - then we lose our commitment. And the organization that "over-interprets" what psychological safety means may have a warm and inclusive environment but too much lack of demands and expectations.

The engaged employee wants to make a meaningful contribution and to feel that his or her own skills are being utilized, developed and challenged. There is an inherent desire to set standards and expect results, which is stimulating for the engaged employee.

So why don't we do it?

To challenge, to allow the individual to grow and to feel that we are making a meaningful contribution, that we feel that we are making a difference, it requires committed leaders who are able, willing and dare to be so personal in their relationships with their team. And that they in turn have the trust of management. It's a personal commitment that I think we need to talk more about.

Anna - many thanks for an inspiring conversation!

‍